www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Dormition/Assumption

Dear Ghazar,

It's good to have you here! Thanks for the well-thought queries, as ususal.

Au contraire, mon ami, Fr. Daley, in the passage cited from "On the Dormition of Mary" is rather conclusive, saying that NONE of the fathers studied referred to the Theotokos' departure with the word "resurrection" (anastasis). How much more conclusive than that do you expect?

To wit:

The boldest and earliest commentator (in the direction of bodily assumption) is Theoteknos. He was alone in his assertion of an "analipsis." Later commentators shied away from using this word. And certainly, it is the word that they had already been using for what we call the Ascension of the Lord. Now, as we remember, the Lord was resurrected and then ascended. So "anastasis" was followed by "analipsis." Theoteknos had the Theotokos go to "analipsis" without an "anastasis." Perhaps that is why future commentators did not follow (what I perceive to be and perhaps what they perceived to be) his error.

What makes Daley's contribution all the more excellent is that, as a Roman Catholic, he is obligated to believe in the (bodily) Assumption ("Analipsis") of the Theotokos, and yet he is willing to point out how the tradition of patristic writers NEVER associated this with the Resurrection ("Anastasis").

The Church's tradition regarding the disposition of the Most Holy Theotokos' All-Pure body is that some believe that it was "translated to life," others "translated to heaven," and others that it decomposed in the grave at Gethsemane (Andrew of Crete and Germanos), while affirming that none were excommunicated or even censured for their beliefs and teachings. None of them caused a schism. None were declared heretical.

In this particular thread I haven't expressed my personal opinions. And if I were to express them, they would be just that, personal opinions. In fact, my own beliefs are (or ought to be) always open to guidance by the Spirit-filled Church, but as of yet, that Church has made no definitive acclamations on the subject outside of the liturgical ones, which I believe to have adequately demonstrated to be paradoxical at best and perhaps confusing at worst to someone not blessed with three years of seminary study and a basic knowledge of koine Greek. My own opinions, in many ways, reflect that paradoxical tension.

I'm waiting for a parishioner at "St. Mary's Assumption Albanian Orthodox Church" in Worcester, Mass. to ask why the name of the Church, when written in Albanian is always "Fjetja e Shen Marise" (the Dormition of St. Mary). Could be confusing, but still not a problem beyond that level.

Certainly "Rejoice, O Gethsemane, the Holy abode of the Theotokos," (from the verses at "Lord I call..." during the Post Feast of the Dormition) could simply be another poetic attestation that the Theotokos sanctified her grave, even if there for only three days, as many believe.

To make the verses from the Post Feast "work" or "make sense," one has to have the Theotokos fall asleep, then her soul depart from her body ("is translated from life to life"), and then the apostles "gaze in great fear" at her lifeless/souless body. No mention at all in the Post Feast verses of the translation of her all-pure body.

The liturgical tradition regarding the translation of her body then appears elsewhere, in the Synaxarion (thank you Fr. Thomas, my home parish doesn't even have a Synaxarion), where the tomb is discovered empty. So now there need have been a second translation, this one for the body, the first for the soul.

It certainly is confusing, for lack of a better word, and we find ourselves becoming lawyers over something that was never meant to be "lawyered" over. The Festal verses are poetic expressions of piety and not dogmatic statements. Put this way, they were never meant to be dissected and understood in the same the way that scripture may be. Scripture is a lesson book. The Festal verses are a song book. Edifying, but in a different way.

What does cause me to make lengthy posts in rebuttal is the assertion that, somehow, despite what we know from our fathers, there is a "universal attestation to a belief in the bodily assumption," as you put it. This is simply not true. If it were true, Daley would have had to have written a very different introduction and the liturgical expressions would have been much more clear. The liturgical tradition clearly embraces several respected and acceptable teachings on this subject.

However, if what I am proposing (that Orthodoxy accepts and respects several teachings on this subject) is correct, then it ceratinly raises a serious dogmatic problem on the horizon for the reunion of Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Andrew,

I got out my copy of Fr Daly's book last night and re-read the introduction. Where does he state that St Andrew of Crete and St Germanus believe the body of the Theotokos remained in the grave? He does mention that St Germanus hinted that the body of the Theotokos did experience some decay before her glorification but in a footnote (#60 on p. 44) he says: "In general, these preachers strenuously deny that her body had undergone any corruption." Fr Daly does distinguish between a resurrection and the translation of her body but not in denial of the traditional view.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Andrew,

And Epiphanius of Cyprus was said to have been an iconoclast, as noted by St John Damascus in his writings.

But, as John said, "just because a bird has sung, does not mean that spring is here."

The Fathers held to views that were deemed not fully Orthodox by the Church and yet they were not condemned as heretics.

Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa are sometimes referred to as "Blessed" rather than "Saint" by Eastern Orthodoxy for this reason. But they are nonetheless venerated liturgically as saints.

If you are making the proposition that what certain Fathers said as individuals concerning the Theotokos is something that is "approved of" by the Church because they were not condemned for holding those views - then the history of hagiography definitely shows you are wrong, Albanian Preacher Man!

Nothing personal . . .

The Eastern Churches especially never required 100% "doctrinal purity" according to the Church's teachings for Fathers to be venerated as such.

That is more along the lines of Roman Catholic traditions, although this is of more recent provenance.

An example would be in how both East and West treat Pope Liberius - the East canonizing him, the West not.

The liturgical tradition of the Church certainly supercedes private views of Fathers and theologians in the Church's history.

There is, for example, one "Blessed Joachim di Fiore" in the RC calendar.

And his teachings contained quite a few heretical doctrines.

It was just that he submitted his teachings to the Church and said, before his death, that he already agrees with whatever corrections to his views the Church would make and agrees with any condemnations of his views the Church would make.

His heretical views were no impediment to his local liturgical veneration.

I think you should listen to Fr. Thomas.

Lex orandi, lex credendi. The final word on all this lies with "Orthodoxy" or "faith expressed through worship."

Alex

Alex,

Good points! and how a propos on the Feast Day of St Liberius!

Pope St Liberius, pray to God for us!

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear David,

Right, I didn't state that Andrew of Crete and Germanus believed that she remained in the grave indefinitely, just that her all-pure body underwent some corruption.

That point is very important because of the need for a "resurrection/anastasis" in order to bring new life to the lifeless/souless body, which had corrupted since it was subject to sin.

Lazarus' body saw corruption. Remember how they warned the Lord that Lazarus would reek if the Lord opened the tomb after four days?

[The Lord's body saw no corruption in the tomb since He is "the only sinless one."]

However, NONE of the fathers spoke of "resurrection/anastasis" for the Theotokos. And only one (Theoteknos) wrote of an "assumption/analipsis," his successors refraining from use of even that word.

Remember that the Lord's "assumption/analipsis" occurred 40 days after he was resurrected. He had entered a type of life transfigured, walking through walls in the upper room but also eating and drinking with the apostles.

Theoteknos, in effect, if we attempt to understand his use of "assumption/analipsis" simultaneously along with the verses, hymns, and synaxarion, is speaking of the "assumption/analipsis" of a lifeless/souless body. That is not how we understand "assumption/analipsis" in its scriptural attribution to the Lord on the fortieth day.

Thus, as I said above, we are left with two translations, one of her soul and the other of her body, if we wish to force the verses, hymns, and synaxarion to consistently make sense. That is, if we wish to "lawyer" it, as I said above.

With love in Christ,
Andrew


This is the citation that I used:

"On the Dormition of Mary" by Brian E. Daley, SJ, Introduction, Section (IV), Subsection (1), pages 27-28; SVS Press, 1998.

Dearest Alex,

It's good to have you back! (I guess )

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Dave,

I didn't know it was - which calendar are you on?

Did you hear Reader Andrew say something?

I thought I did, but I'm not sure

God bless and do tell Reader Andrew I send him my best the next time you are talking to him, there's a good fellow!

Alex

Andrew,

I'm not sure if I understand your position. The Catholic belief is that the Theotokos was "assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." What is your objection to this?

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear David,

I don't object to that teaching, or shall I say, call it "invalid," but point out that in the Orthodox East it is not the only acceptable teaching. I won't repost what I have already posted, but give you my opinion of what Orthodoxy holds:

Orthodox Christians may or may not believe in a bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Some Church fathers have taught that her body was assumed, some have taught that it was not. The overwhelming majority of the eastern fathers spoke of a translation to life (as does the liturgical language). Only ONE father, Theoteknos, wrote of her assumption/analipsis. NO Church father spoke of her resurrection/anastasis. The reasons were posted previously.

No universal council has ever proclaimed that belief in her assumption is mandatory.

The problem, in relation to the hoped-for unity of East and West, comes in reckoning the myriad and non-obligatory Eastern Orthodox teachings with the sole infallible and obligatory teaching of the Roman Catholic Church since the late 1800s reagrding her bodily assumption.

In Christ,
Andrew

Andrew,

You seem to be differentiating between "assumption" and "translation." For us Catholics it's the same thing.

The Fathers that Fr Daly cites in his excellent volume are all agreed on this:

that the body of the Theotokos did not remain in the grave but was taken to heaven.

That's all Catholics are required to believe.

Or are you saying that it's perfectly fine to believe that the body of the Theotokos lies somewhere in the Middle East and was not translated to heaven? If so, Fr Daly's book argues persuasively against such a view. His work is very positive testimony to the traditional view that the body of the Theotokos was taken to heaven and nowhere allows for the view that her body remained in the grave.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear David,

Fr. Daley's excellent book cites the evidence to prove that:

"assumption/analipsis" and "translation/metathesis/metastasis" are not the same and were used selectively by the fathers.

That's why I like his book. Although he is "preprogrammed" and "obligated" to believe in the "assumption/analipsis," he clearly shows how only one father used that word and how all subsequent ones shied away from it, preferring "translation!"

And as he shows, NOT A SINGLE father that he studied used the word "resurrection" in reference to her "translation to life."

Jesuits usually get the facts right. What they do with them afterwords is another issue.

He and his publisher may or may not realize it, but he supports well the case that there have been and still are varied and equally valid teachings in the east regarding the Dormition of the Theotokos.

In Christ,
Andrew

PS: I'm in the Eastern Orthodox (Catholic) Church and not required to believe in the bodily assumption of the Most Holy Theotokos, may she save us through her example!

Andrew,

What father in Fr Daly's book said the body of the Theotokos remained in the grave?

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear David,

I certainly never implied that and so have no direct answer but think that Fr. Daley would not be the one to point out such a father, as it would disagree, possibly, with his end goal. Nonetheless, I think that he did provide at least one example, although unwittingly, which I'll discuss below.

However, I first do refer you to Cyril of Jerusalem's lengthy homilee on the Dormition Feast from the 650s AD. (Now, it could have been Cyril of Alexandria, I'll have to look it up again, elsewhere. - Fr. Daley definitely left this one out of his book.) I'm pretty sure it was Cyril, Patriarch of Jerusalem:

He preached at length on the feast of the Dormition, never once speaking of an "assumption/analipsis." I'll have to read it again, but as I recall, he never even made any reference to the disposition of her lifeless body after its placement in the tomb in Kedron/Gethsemane.

Incredible! How could one preach on the Feast of the Dormition and not comment upon this. Even if we hold that he WOULD HAVE taught that her body had been assumed, at a minimum, we are forced to conclude that it was not a very important point for him in his teaching.

I'll try to find Cyril's homilee and add it to this most fascinating discussion. I have posted a link to it previously, but can't remember when or in which subforum.

Back to Daley. He includes the following which should cause one to pause, unless already "preprogrammed" and "obligated." It is a citation on pages 5-6 from Bp. Epiphanios of Salamis, a Cypriot heresy-hunter who was reacting to a womens' group, the Collyridians, that even offered an eucharistic liturgy in honor of the Theotokos, not Christ, regarding "her as a Goddess."

Epiphanios says, ".....If the Holy Virgin died and was buried, her falling asleep was honorable and her end holy; her crown consisted in her virginity...." [He had previously been fighting those that denied her ever-virginity. I already like him!] He continues, "Or if she was put to death, accrording to the scripture, "a sword shall pierce her soul," her fame is among the martyrs and her holy body should be an object of our veneration, since through it light came into the world. Or else she remained alive; for it is not impossible for God to do whatever he wills. In fact, no one knows her end."

I like it! Although he is on super-thin ice with the Orthodox by implying that she may not have died at all, he certainly leaves open the possiblity that her body remains in the grave (in the year 377 AD) for veneration as our greatest example!!!! And finally, as he says, we just don't know what happened.

If it had been the universal attestation of the Church through all times that she had been assumed bodily, would the heresy-hunter have spoken thus? The fact is that the teachings have been various and even divergent, or paradoxical, to be more polite. Epiphanios was hunting heresies and yet neither the opinion that she lived glorified in heaven nor the opinion that she remained in the grave was anything that he seemed concerned with! Amazing, no?

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Reader Andrew in Christ,

At different times in the Church's history, certain doctrines have assumed a level of importance that they did not have previously--e.g. if we look to the Fathers of the second, third, and fourth centuries, we don't find a lot of terms like "two natures; one person in Christ", or even "Theotokos". The fathers weren't concerned; there were different opinions, etc. But that doesn't mean that those doctrines should be left up in the air today--Ephesus and Chalcedon took care of that, and it is a matter of Faith that Christ is true man and that the Virgin Mary is the Theotokos.

Thus, finding early Fathers who do not mention the Assumption while discussing the Dormition is not--in itself--a convincing argument that the issue should be left perpetually up-for-grabs. As you yourself noted, Epiphanios left open the possibility that the Virgin did not die at all, which is "on thin ice" in the Orthodox tradition.

Catholics are "preprogrammed" or "obligated" to believe in the Assumption only in the same way that we are all preprogrammed and obligated to believe in such things as the Divinity of Christ, the "Theo"tokos, etc.

Now, I know that the Orthodox still consider the Ecumenical Council to be the primary, if not the sole means of doctrinal development. Thus, you will say, comparing the Assumption to the rulings of Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon is not fair to you, since an Ecumenical Council has never defined the Assumption as an article of Faith. From where you're at, fair enough. (We can have a separate discussion of Papal teaching authority ). I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, even in the Orthodox framework, you have to admit the possibility that the Assumption *could* become an Article of Faith--the vague fathers don't really have the last word. And, as Alice has noted, belief in the Assumption seems to have a certain weight of authority behind it in the Orthodox liturgy and in the more recent consensus of Orthodox theologians. (But you know more about both of those things than I do.)

Just shooting my mouth off,

LatinTrad

Bretheren,
I think the key point here in the discussion is the "sinlessness" of the Virgin Mary.
How can we not, at this point, be reminded of Mary as the model of the Church (in all its glory) and as the archtype of humanity? She is the one who in this life was impregnated with Divine Life!
She is the one who in this life allowed her entire person - body and soul - to be permeated by the Holy Spirit. Hence, she is our escathological hope.
For in her, the redemption of the body is already brought to completion.
Isnt that the whold point of the feast that we celebrate?

Stephanos I